Juvenile Crime And Juvenile Offenders

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

In order to properly address mandatory incarceration for chronic juvenile offender’s criminal activities, it is important to begin with psychological assessments and evaluations. Half of our youths have experienced some type of psychological trauma such as depression, PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, anger issues, or dissociation, just to name a few (Moroz, K. 2009). In order to determine mandatory incarceration, all of these factors must be considered. I will agree with most of our society that is , if they are a danger to society and serious of the crime, they need to be put into detention, where they cannot cause harm but where they can received the right intervention program and mental health treatment for them, it’s the law. The juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate not punish young offenders. Punishment is not the answer in solving their delinquent behavioral patterns.

Juvenile correctional systems have many different components and some are likely to be affected with a primary focus on rehabilitation. Today the United States falls short of providing adequate public juvenile facilities. With a focus on punishment, the need for new facilities will continue to rise. Switching the primary focus to

To examine current treatments, firstly, seeing the re-offenders rate is helpful. Although the re-offenders rate of juvenile offenders are not calculated nationally, according to 2010 Juvenile justice Outcome Evaluation Report (2010) by California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in California, State-level incarceration recidivism rate of minors released in fiscal year 2004 to 2005 is 56.5 percent. 56.5 percent of released juvenile offenders returned to incarceration within 3 years. Also 81.1 percent of minors leased in fiscal 2004 to 2005 were rearrested. 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report (2012) by CDCR shows 25.4 percent of juvenile offenders who released from Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in 2007 to 2008 returned to Division of Adult institutions (DAI). From 2010 to 2012, the rate had decreased more than half. However, in 2010 to 2012, still one of every four juvenile offenders commit a crime again. The expectable recidivism rate can be considered as a large number. The higher

Not to mention most of the 50 states have harshened their policies on juvenile crime.

Most of the time, the system has proven itself to be unsuccessful in dealing with juvenile crimeMost often, the system is unsuccessful. “There are kids who are five times more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities. The risk of suicide is likewise much higher for juveniles in adult jails.”(How to reduce crime Pg 3). When juveniles are sent to jail, they are still relatively impressionable from people in the prison, and may go back into crime after they’re released, hindering rehabilitation and just creating another violent criminal in the world. The court sentencing the criminal is also at

The MacArthur & Casey foundations were the trigger for the courts to become more and more lenient, even for the worst offenders, over the last eight years. This gradual evolution follows what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has called, “The evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The Obama Justice Department has also joined the effort, says Fred Lucas in his article “Going Soft on Juvenile Crime: How the MacArthur and Casey foundations distort youth offender policies” from Organization Trends.

Although some people believe that juvenile offenders should be treated like adults and take the same treatment as adults. The sentencing of a juvenile offender should not be tried as an adult, children should not be given the same handling as adults do, adults are different from kids. Adults know how to intake all of the effects of being treated the way they get treated in jail. Children are not capable of the pressure of being treated like adults yet, it also puts a lot of pressure on the juvenile and creates mental breakdowns. This is not right nor fair for children to have to be tried as adults, it is not the same punishments that adults get in jail, it’s more of a harsh and cruel system for adults than for the children to be placed in the facility they are in and get treated like they do.

Rehabilitation and reintegration to guarantee that youth who have committed an offense get the treatment and

Juveniles should not be tried as adults for violent crimes and given the opportunity to be rehabilitated. Case in point, in the October 1998 issue of Emerge Magazine is a feature article

The United States has been incarcerating child offenders for a couple hundred years without any indication that it benefits children or society. Currently, there are approximately 54,000 juvenile offenders in youth-detention facilities across the nation. Of those kids, in an average year, 17,800 have not even been sentenced. According to the Campaign for Youth Justice, they are just awaiting their turn in court. What’s more, another 200,000 youth is tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year.

The juvenile justice system is always changing and developing new ideas. The first example of a change or development can be the status offense reform. The basis of this are they are trying to keep the non-delinquent kids form the juvenile justice system. Some examples of status offenses are skipping school, or running away – offenses that are not illegal for adults. These offenses can lead to possibly detention, which might do very little to rehabilitate or change the issues that juvenile has. How this can all change is to bring these troubled kids to community based services to make them learn that it is possible to change and become a better person. Some other examples of changes or developments in our juvenile justice system (that I won’t go into detail about) are the quality of aftercare and how the system is trying to reduce racial-ethnic discrepancies and making it fairer for everyone (models for change).

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.

Every process has room for improvement, but the juvenile justice system can be altered by adding in possible solutions of what can be done to help this problem in American society. About 100 years ago, juveniles were always tried as adults. Now, that the government has altered the system for the better, the government knows that trying juveniles as adults is not always justified. It depends on the crime, but the majority of the time, juveniles are often always tried as juveniles, based solely on their age. Not only that has changed; the process of juvenile justice has changed as well to better help the juveniles in the system. The rights of juveniles in the system have changed so that the children can improve their lives once they are out of the system. Even though the process has changed and the rights have improved for the juveniles, there are still many improvements to be made. Studies show that recidivism rates are in fact going down, but the rate can always be better so that juveniles do not return to a life of crime.